The Great Canadian Skyline Thread!

[Trans Canada]

Originally Posted by Beedok

60s and 70s apartment buildings are great. They're residential (which is always a plus) and they lack the excessive glass of 90s to modern residential buildings. Instead they look solid and permanent. They give a sense of urban stability unlikely the weak glass towers so popular today. Luckily actual walls seem to be regaining popularity.

Out of curiosity, what is your favourite building in Canada? or maybe top 3?



Truncated Skyline by DCZwick, on Flickr

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

Out of curiosity, what is your favourite building in Canada? or maybe top 3?

Well that's tricky because:
a) I'm not very good at picking favourites
b) I tend to prefer to overall cityscape to any single building
c) I rarely know the names, and even more rarely remember the ones I do learn


I suppose if I have to pick though I'd go for:

The W building in Vancouver as it's the best building I can remember the name of. It's a little glassy, but not pure glass.

(Olympia in Hamilton is probably my favourite individual building Hamilton. I also like the Arkledun.)

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by rousseau

60s and 70s apartment towers are ugly. They are a blight on cities. Your opinion is bizarre.


Yes, let's look at this "street." More closely. Because it's not a street, it's one single, solitary section of a street filled with soul-crushing apartment blocks with large setbacks and grass lawns in front of them. In fact, look right across the phreaking street from those lovely New York-esque townhouses. Like what you see? Of course not.

And yes, the lawns in front of those lovely townhouses are a disgrace, and actually do ruin what would otherwise would have been a nice section of the street. Look at all of those lawns. Do kids play in them? Do people sit in them, enjoying them? Do they look nice? Do they soothe the eye, give the street a pleasant vista?

No, no, no, no and no. They are a product of a mid-century mindset bereft of design ideas that didn't involve carving new highways and subdivisions out of the countryside.

What on earth are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about retail? What does that have to do with anything?


Only complete idiots who feel faint at the notion of having to traverse urban territory without their trusty automobiles would ever claim that Hamilton lacks greenery. The very idea is farcical.

Nobody is claiming they don't like residential buildings. I'm claiming that Hamilton's residential high-rises are ugly and depressing, making for an ugly skyline. Just because they replaced houses with front lawns is no excuse for them having front lawns themselves, but that was the sad mentality of the era.

Declaring Hamilton's skyline anything other than hideous is akin to praising St. Jamestown in Toronto for how lovely it is. Don't be ridiculous.

Beedok reminds me of this guy I used to know who was only attracted to fat chicks, he was repulsed by statuesque hotties...there's no debating aesthetics with him, he lives in his own aesthetic universe

[Laceoflight]

Montreal, seen from the top of mont Saint-Grégoire, 36 kms ESE.


Montreal viewed from Mont-St-Grégoire by pegase1972, on Panoramio

[FrAnKs]

It's well know that the southern sprawl of Montréal isn't as bad as the north shore.
According to me, stronger efforts must be made to built up Laval before any other further developpements up of Rivière des Miles îles.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

It's well know that the southern sprawl of Montréal isn't as bad as the north shore.

Essentially because of the LPTAAQ (loi de protection du territoire et des activités agricoles, 1978) which limits sprawl around cities and towns in the Saint-Lawrence plain.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

Essentially because of the LPTAAQ (loi de protection du territoire et des activités agricoles, 1978) which limits sprawl around cities and towns in the Saint-Lawrence plain.

Les meilleures terres agricoles ! Et dieu sais que notre territoire agricole est plutôt limité. Lorsqu'on perd des terres agricoles, elles ne pourront jamais être remplacées.

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

Montreal, seen from the top of mont Saint-Grégoire, 36 kms ESE.


Montreal viewed from Mont-St-Grégoire by pegase1972, on Panoramio

If there's a photo that actually makes a good case for Montreal's height limit, it's this one.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Les meilleures terres agricoles ! Et dieu sais que notre territoire agricole est plutôt limité. Lorsque perd des terres agricoles, elles ne pourront jamais être remplacées.

En fait, on pourrait les remplacer par les terres qui sont présentement en forêt dans les mêmes régions, il en reste encore quand même pas mal, même en Montérégie (on peut en voir quelques unes dans la photo, justement).

Je comprends par contre très bien ce que tu voulais dire...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

If there's a photo that actually makes a good case for Montreal's height limit, it's this one.

You think it would look bad if the buildings exceeded the hill...?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

Les meilleures terres agricoles ! Et dieu sais que notre territoire agricole est plutôt limité. Lorsque perd des terres agricoles, elles ne pourront jamais être remplacées.

Les meilleures pour Quebec, non? Ou est-ce qu'ils sont les meilleures du Canada? J'ai pense que c'etaient en Ontario, mais il y a une bonne chance que je suis incorrecte.

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by lio45

En fait, on pourrait les remplacer par les terres qui sont présentement en forêt dans les mêmes régions, il en reste encore quand même pas mal, même en Montérégie (on peut en voir quelques unes dans la photo, justement).

Je comprends par contre très bien ce que tu voulais dire...

J'ai pourtant toujours cru que les colons avaient cultivés ce qu'ils avaient pu et que ces petits boisés restants n'étaient pas ''potables''
En même temps, je trouve que la région de la Montérégie est assez déboisée comme ça et je ne suis pas certain que les résidents accepteraient de déboiser les dernières forets pour l'agriculture...
Qu'en dites-vous ?

[FrAnKs]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Les meilleures pour Quebec, non? Ou est-ce qu'ils sont les meilleures du Canada? J'ai pense que c'etaient en Ontario, mais il y a une bonne chance que je suis incorrecte.

Better ? I'm not quite sure.
Maybe. But it all depend of what is growing up on it.

[Laceoflight]

Originally Posted by FrAnKs

J'ai pourtant toujours cru que les colons avaient cultivés ce qu'ils avaient pu et que ces petits boisés restants n'étaient pas ''potables''
En même temps, je trouve que la région de la Montérégie est assez déboisée comme ça et je ne suis pas certain que les résidents accepteraient de déboiser les dernières forets pour l'agriculture...
Qu'en dites-vous ?

You are right. Everything that is still not cultivated in Montérégie probably will never be (unless there is a change within the current law): this is no suitable land for modern intensive agricultural techniques. Many of these lots were cultivated until the 70's. Agricultural intensification, since the 60's, has led to the abandonment of agricultural land in the Eastern Townships (Appalachians) and the Laurentians, and also in the least fertile pockets of the Saint-Lawrence plain.

[GreaterMontréal]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2010001/article/11134/map-carte/map-carte002-fra.htm

[FrAnKs]

Funny to notice how we clearly have two big separated regions in the Québec-Windsor corridor.

The Ottawa-Montreal-Québec one should be around 8.5M (7M for southern Québec + 1.5 around Ottawa)
While the Windsor-Toronto-Kingston spot should be around 11.5M (13.6M minus 1.5M , minus northern Ontario with 0.75M)

[rousseau]

Beedok, stop being a jackass. You're purposely trying to get a rise out of me by twisting my words or being obtuse. You can tell I care, and take Hamilton personally. Stop trolling.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Across the street we have brick walk up lowrises. Across the street the other way we have another brick low rise walk up.

That is not a traditional walk-up. For fuck's sakes. These, the townhouses in your link up-thread, are walk-ups.



Hamilton would be gorgeous if it consisted of streets and streets of walk-ups like this, and their presence would mitigate the fact that they have front lawns in front of them. But, sadly, this photo does not characterize Hamilton's vernacular.

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think most people in the neighbourhood would say they look nice and sooth the eyes. People tend to like trees.

Yeah, people like trees. Nobody said otherwise. One of the problems with downtown Hamilton is all the stupid front lawns everywhere taking up space and preventing the city from having as good an urban fabric as it could.

No front lawns would mean greater density. Greater density would encourage foot traffic. You'd have, you know, a city. This is basic urban design 101.

Instead, the Durand area of Hamilton has a collection of what are essentially suburban-style apartment towers. They are exactly the same as the ones you see in Stoney Creek.

Originally Posted by Beedok

The front yards of Victorian (maybe Edwardian) stone rowhouses are the result of a mid-century mindset focused on subdivisions and highways?

I was referring to the lawns around the 1960s and 70s apartment blocks.

Originally Posted by Beedok

No, actually it's directed at many of the lower income neighbourhoods of the inner city where there's been fairly large discussions about the psychological effect of a lack of greenery and such.

Hamilton is lush and green everywhere. There is not a single solitary residential neighbourhood anywhere in the city of Hamilton that is not full of greenery itself or more than close enough to parks and nature. Virtually all houses in Hamilton have front and backyards.

Just imagine all of the towers closer to each other and the street. Then imagine taking all of those useless front lawns and channelling them into an awesome park that would actually get used.

Again, urban design 101. You could stand to learn something about it.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Les meilleures pour Quebec, non? Ou est-ce qu'ils sont les meilleures du Canada? J'ai pense que c'etaient en Ontario, mais il y a une bonne chance que je suis incorrecte.

yes, Southern Ontario has a warmer climate, but the valley of the Richelieu is some sort of a microclimate.

[rousseau]

I know I'm veering off-topic, but one more educational photo from a different thread should help to disabuse Beedok of his/her misguided notions.



This is from Montreal. Note how the steps come right to the sidewalk. This is better urban design than the photo above of the walk-ups in Hamilton, which have front lawns.

With these you can have nice private greenery in a back garden that is actually useful. Front lawns in the central section of a city are just wasted space and bad urban design.

[Monolith]

Nightlights by Clayton Perry Photoworks, on Flickr